Getting it into your agent
One page per mod, every tool's command on it. A separate URL per tool would split the same page into five that compete with each other.
npx skills add ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas --skill comprehensive-review-full-reviewgit clone --depth 1 https://github.com/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personasWrote this? Show the measurements
A badge with what this costs and how it scanned, read live from this page, so it follows the numbers instead of freezing them. Markdown for a README, HTML for a documentation site or a project page.
[](https://agentmods.dev/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/comprehensive-review-full-review)<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/comprehensive-review-full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/comprehensive-review-full-review/github.svg" alt="Measured on agentmods" height="20"></a>Or the 80×15 button, for a site that already has a row of RSS and ATOM ones. Only the verdict fits; the numbers stay here.
<a href="https://agentmods.dev/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/comprehensive-review-full-review"><img src="https://agentmods.dev/badge/skills/ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas/comprehensive-review-full-review.svg" alt="Reviewed on agentmods" width="80" height="20"></a>What it costs to keep this loaded
Counted locally with the o200k_base tokenizer, which is exact for GPT models; Claude uses its own tokenizer and its counts differ. Treat this as one consistent yardstick across the catalogue rather than a bill. Prices are per million input tokens.
| Model | Per session | Once invoked |
|---|---|---|
| Fable 5.1 | $0.00014 | $0.01900 |
| Opus 5 | $0.00007 | $0.00950 |
| Sonnet 5 | $0.00003 | $0.00380 |
| Haiku 4.5 | $0.00001 | $0.00190 |
Grade A, and why
comprehensive-review-full-review scanned grade A with 0 findings against 26 rules in 11 categories — prompt injection, anti-refusal, data exfiltration, privilege escalation, supply chain, agent snooping, system-prompt leakage, SSRF and excessive agency — measured 12d ago.
A static scan of the body, not an audit. Every finding is printed with the line that produced it so you can judge whether it matters here. A mod is markdown that instructs an agent; that is exactly why what it instructs is worth reading.
Nothing flagged
None of the 26 patterns this scan looks for appear in this file: no shell pipes, no recursive deletes, no credential paths, no hidden text, no instruction-override or anti-refusal phrasing, no agent-config snooping. That is not a guarantee, it is the absence of the things that are checkable.
This is a copy
97% identical to comprehensive-review-full-review — 4 lines differ, which has more behind it and is treated as the original. This page carries a canonical link to it rather than competing with it.
How it starts
The opening of the file, as written. The whole thing — 150 lines — stays where its author put it; the contents beside it link to each section on GitHub.
Use this skill when
- Working on comprehensive review full review tasks or workflows
- Needing guidance, best practices, or checklists for comprehensive review full review
Do not use this skill when
- The task is unrelated to comprehensive review full review
- You need a different domain or tool outside this scope
Instructions
- Clarify goals, constraints, and required inputs.
- Apply relevant best practices and validate outcomes.
- Provide actionable steps and verification.
- If detailed examples are required, open
resources/implementation-playbook.md.
Orchestrate comprehensive multi-dimensional code review using specialized review agents
[Extended thinking: This workflow performs an exhaustive code review by orchestrating multiple specialized agents in sequential phases. Each phase builds upon previous findings to create a comprehensive review that covers code quality, security, performance, testing, documentation, and best practices. The workflow integrates modern AI-assisted review tools, static analysis, security scanning, and automated quality metrics. Results are consolidated into actionable feedback with clear prioritization and remediation guidance. The phased approach ensures thorough coverage while maintaining efficiency through parallel agent execution where appropriate.]
Review Configuration Options
- --security-focus: Prioritize security vulnerabilities and OWASP compliance
- --performance-critical: Emphasize performance bottlenecks and scalability issues
- --tdd-review: Include TDD compliance and test-first verification
- --ai-assisted: Enable AI-powered review tools (Copilot, Codium, Bito)
- --strict-mode: Fail review on any critical issues found
- --metrics-report: Generate detailed quality metrics dashboard
- --framework [name]: Apply framework-specific best practices (React, Spring, Django, etc.)
Phase 1: Code Quality & Architecture Review
Use Task tool to orchestrate quality and architecture agents in parallel:
What this file has done since we first saw it
Hashed on every crawl. A supply-chain change to an agent config is a question of when, not whether, so the history is kept rather than the latest state alone.
- 12d ago First seen · 150 lines · 14 tokens per session scan A 70870fa120d3
comprehensive-review-full-review is a skill published in the GitHub repository ratnesh-maurya/cursor-claude-personas (8 stars, last pushed 5mo ago), licensed MIT. It adds 14 tokens to every session and 1,900 once invoked, about $0.0001 per session on Opus 5. A static security scan graded it A with 0 findings. It is 97% identical to comprehensive-review-full-review, differing in 4 lines, and is treated as a copy.
Other skills, from other repositories
gentle-ai-collab-perfect
Trigger: contributing to Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai as an external collaborator. Strict issue-first workflow, honest PR bodies, contributor-vs-maintainer scope, chained-PR strategy, verification protocol, docstring coverage. Load whenever the active repo is Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai and any part of the…
sdd-verify
Skill "sdd-verify" from Gentleman-Programming/gentle-ai, covering execution role, language domain contract, activation contract, hard rules and decision gates.
branch-pr
Create Gentle AI pull requests with issue-first checks. Trigger: creating, opening, or preparing PRs for review.
work-unit-commits
Plan commits as reviewable work units. Trigger: implementation, commit splitting, chained PRs, or keeping tests and docs with code.
cognitive-doc-design
Design docs that reduce cognitive load. Trigger: writing guides, READMEs, RFCs, onboarding, architecture, or review-facing docs.
systemic-issue-triage
Trigger: new issue, bug report, triage, backlog, issue flood, community report, root cause, dead-end, blocked user. Attack issues by root class, never one-by-one; fixes must shrink the system, not grow it.